Judge Michael J. Strickroth, Case 2022-01298807 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2022-01298807, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

The Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction before the Court brought by Petitioner Santa Ana Police Officers Association is DENIED.

The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request for judicial notice of Exhibits 1 and 2 pursuant to Evidence Code §452(c) and (h). Julian Volunteer Fire Co. Assn. v. Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Protection Dist. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 583, 599–600.

The Court OVERRULES Respondents’ evidentiary objections to the Serrano Declaration. The Court sustains Respondents’ evidentiary objections 1 through 21 to the late-filed Mendez Declaration.

Code of Civil Procedure, § 527 (a) provides: “A preliminary injunction may be granted at any time before judgment upon a verified complaint, or upon affidavits if the complaint in the one case, or the affidavits in the other, show satisfactorily that sufficient grounds exist therefor. No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposing party.”

Code of Civil Procedure § 526 (a) provides: “(a) An injunction may be granted in the following cases: ¶ (1) When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually. ¶ (2) When it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action. ¶ (3) When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. ¶ (4) When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief. ¶ (5) Where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief. ¶ (6) Where the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings. ¶ (7) Where the obligation arises from a trust.”

“[T]rial courts should evaluate two interrelated factors when deciding whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction. The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial. The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued.” IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 69-70.

“To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff ordinarily is required to present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits.” White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.

Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian Church v. California Presbytery (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1084, states, “An injunction cannot issue in a vacuum based on the proponents’ fears about something that may happen in the future. It must be supported by actual evidence that there is a realistic prospect that the party enjoined intends to engage in the prohibited activity.”

On 12-29-22, the Court heard Petitioner Santa Ana Police Officers Association’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order restraining Respondents from implementation of the City of Santa Ana’s Last, Best and Final Offer (LBFO) dated 9-8-22. The Court denied the request for a temporary restraining order and set the instant Order to Show Cause. On 6-20-23, the Santa Ana City Council approved a new MOU establishing the terms and conditions of employment for classifications represented by the SAPOA effective 1-1-23 through 12-31-23. (Rossini Supp. Dec. ¶ 5; Exs A and B.) The new MOU replaces the LBFO, which expired on December 31, 2022. (Ex. B to Petition for Writ of Mandate (ROA # 2).)

Thus, the Court does not need to enjoin Respondents from implementing the LBFO dated 9-8-22, because Respondents have implemented the new MOU.

Petitioner argues Respondents may try and pass a LBFO with 4 instead of 5 votes again in the future. However, based on Code of Civil Procedure section 1010, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a), and Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125, the court should only evaluate the requests in the Notice of Motion. Thus, the Court will not entertain a request to enjoin Respondents from future conduct which may or may not occur.

Based on the foregoing, there are no grounds for a Preliminary Injunction because the request is moot.

Petitioner to give notice.

Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)

Petitioner Santa Ana Police Officers Association’s Motion to Compel Deposition is CONTINUED to September 25, 2023, at 1:45 p.m.

The Court would like further briefing regarding whether the entire Petition for Writ of Mandate is moot. Respondent may file an opening brief 16 court days prior to the hearing, Petitioner can file an Opposition 9 court days prior to the hearing and Respondent can file a Reply 5 court days prior to the hearing. No brief may exceed 5 pages.

Petitioner to give notice.